July 13, 2011

Have you ever noticed how bad Google ads are? I get about 8,000 visits or more per day from a hard-to-reach audience of highly intelligent and influential readers, but the ads Google chooses to place in my right hand column are hilariously inapt. If I write about the scandal of lawyers who commit asylum fraud, I get ads from Google for lawyers offering to help you commit asylum fraud. If I write about Bill James's suggestion for prison reform, I get ads for "Save $ on prison calls." If I write about Racehorse Haynes's legal tactics, I get ads for bailbondsmen.

After all these years, Google hasn't bothered to learn one thing about what sells and what doesn't sell on my website. Everything is still triggered solely by keywords, not by a long demonstrated patterns.

47 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It's the same crap on talk radio. Radio hosts talk about personal responsibility but then there are tons of ads that go, 'get rid of your debt... you're a victim of collection agency.. it's not your fault that you're close to bankruptcy...'

Hate to say it, Steve, but most of Google's ad profits are not coming from your few readers. Their money's coming from the hordes who read People, TMZ, and find 'in-depth analysis' from NBC Nightly News really difficult.

That said, who would have Google advertise when you discuss asylum seekers? VDARE? AMCON? Altright? Winchester or Colt Manufacturing?, 'Inflatable Dingy's R US', or the Hollywood version of The Camp of the Saints?

I don't think writers like you have an algorithmic equivalent in the Google machine. Consider it a compliment.

Google is vastly overrated as a business- see the locksmith scandal the other day. I started using Google years ago as it worked a little better than Yahoo search, which was completely worthless. Google seems to work ok for things that are either common or very obscure, but not things in between that are complicated in any way.

Search is an arms race. Google only has to be moderately better than the competition. My guess is that they have a horde of more advanced algorithms up their sleeves. Probably something like a real AI for search. Why should they expose their advantage when it is not necessary in the market?

Bing would just reverse engineer their approach.

No, Google is doing exactly what they should do maintain a small but significant advantage over the other guys.

By the way, maybe Google software will be driving your BMW for you someday. What other search company is doing stuff like that :)

Steve, maybe you ought to shamelessly emulate Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, and tout good deals at Amazon.

Example:

AT [link] AMAZON, Top Deals In Electronics.

Posted at 9:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

Radio hosts talk about personal responsibility but then there are tons of ads that go, 'get rid of your debt... you're a victim of collection agency.. it's not your fault that you're close to bankruptcy...'

The talk show stars have no control over most of those ads, because the radio stations sell those ads, not the talk shows. Rush Limbo, G. Beck, Hannity, etc. are syndicated shows which are sold to radio stations. The radio stations or their parent companies pay fees for the talk show. The radio stations are then entitled to sell and profit from ads during breaks in the talk shows. The breaks seem to be occupying at least fifteen minutes of every hour, and growing.

The conservative talk radio stations run ads for very dubious products, such as patent medicines to restore one's youthful mmanhood and vigor, or See Clearly brand eye exercises to improve one's eyesight. No products for young peepul on conservative talk radio... :0)

I once heard Rush Limbaugh complain that his show ( meaning his show's radio stations as well ) couldn't attract ads from big corporations.

The talk show guys do make some personal product endorsements during their shows. These ads sre sold by the talk shows. For example, I have noticed that Beck and Hannity endorse buying gold coins from Gold Line. ( I think Gold Line's product must be gold coins. ) That could sting Beck and Hannity if the price of gold ever takes a dive.

Steve, to attract more Google ads, you need to start name-dropping more brand names into your iSteve pieces.

When you do a movie or classic rock review, be sure to name the studio name and cast and the words Netflix, HBO, Starz, iPod, iPHone, Apple music, and so on. Review some best selling books, even if you don't like the books, and post links to the books on Amazon.

Diversify iSteve into some product-rich topics, such as food and drink and maybe personal fitness programs for the stay at home guy who doesn't get out too much. {:0/

... Also flowers and gardens and pets, including pet rabbits. Get your wife or a woman friend to do guest posts about clothing and fashion, dropping lots of brand names in the process. And let's not forget about cars and gasoline. Do posts on driving, and drop lots of brand names.

You need to furnish Google with additional key words tied to popular products and services. That's the idea.

Also, you need to upgrade your website. The current set-up that requires clicking on iSteve.blogspot.com after going to iSteve.com is too amateurish. Sorree about that ...

Maybe you could hold an extra special iSteve fund drive to raise the cash to do this. You ought to buy a digital camera, even if it's a cheapie, and post some snapshots from time to time to add visual interest to your new web page.

iSteve.com needs a logo and a slogan, such as "Evolution hasn't stopped!" Your revamped web page could sell T-shirts and sweatshirts with the iSteve logo and slogan. And let's not forget iSteve coffee mugs.

I work at Google, but I don't work on the search or display products. I am familiar with them. Those ads are contextual; the ads that are served based on the relevancy of the ads plus the advertisers' bids in the auction. The contextual algorithm often produces undesirable results for both publisher and advertiser. I wish the product was more turnkey, but as it stands now, you (the publisher) would be advised to do a better job optimizing the campaign and exclude undesirable advertisers. I admit, this might be a never-ending battle and requires time you should spend doing other things, but I would give it a try. Additionally, given your site's volume, it might be wise to carve out space for something more sophisticated than AdSense.

"I had a paranoid feeling that it [Google's poor ad strategy] was being done on purpose, as if to undermine the blog in some subtle way. But if it's just due to ineptness I guess I should feel better."

Me, too!

And I must say I'm delighted to have something in common with at least one of Steve's highly intelligent and influential readers.

Thank you, Chicago. I always enjoy your comments but this time you really made my day.

Do they still print "Ads by Google" on them? (I can't see the ones on your site.)

Maybe they're just trying to increase their own brand recognition. Not that people don't know who Google is, but in order to impress people with all the many areas of business that they have gotten into. "We're not just a search company -- we even do ____! We're so super-smart!"

Really, what other ads have you ever seen that make a point of telling you who the advertising middleman was?

Actually seems kind of logical to me. In both the first two cases - asylum fraud and prison reform -- a relatively small number of people searching on those terms would be trying to commit asylum fraud or have relatives incarcerated, but of all people searching on those terms they would be the two groups most likely to be spending money related to those general topics.

That's an affiliate program, and Amazon severed all relationships with its affiliates in California due to changes in tax law.

Nope, I think affiliates means [CA] retailers who were selling through Amazon, but not linkers to Amazon. Need to verify that.

Google seems to rank web pages on a scale from one to ten, where ten is most popular and one is least popular. Instapundit is a "7," iSteveblogspot.com is a "5,:" and U. of Wisconsin law prof. Ann Althouse at althouse.blogspot.com is a "6."

Has anyone on this page actually clicked on an online ad because of what it says?

I haven't in 16 years of internet use.

But other people do click on the ads. Congratulations for your saintly frugality.

Holier-than-thou Uncle Scrooges aren't the only Internet users.

Somewhere in one of long-forgotten guru Marshall MacLuhan's books, I can't remember which book, he makes fun of pretentious people who affect to pay no attention to advertisements. MacLuhan's point was that people who soak up a lot of mass information media can't stop themselves from soaking up ads on some level.

You know, one of the long-standing views about American conservatives who read and write for higher-brow little magazines is that they aspire to be "beautiful losers" -- meaning that they'd rather be admired for their purity and gentility rather than be respected and feared for winning life's games.

"A man's a fool who doesn't write for money." Who said that, Boswell or Dr. Johnson? I get those two confused.

Anyway, Steve needs more income. iSteve needs to make some $ in ways other than rattling the blogger's begging cup.

///

Another thing Mr. Sailer needs to do is write another book. Suggested title: Human Biological Diversity: What You Ought to Know

Do it in three steps:

(1) Post individual chapters for free on the Net, as the chapters are written. Use reader feedback to help polish the chapters.

I’ve written a prior post on my sales and advances on first five books which were all published with major publishers. (Also, including a part about how my wife finally fell for me). But I’m never going to publish in the morgue of the publishing industry again. This post today is about why I did it and how you can do it.

(3) Also shop for a conventional publishing deal, citing many downloads of (1) and (2) as a sales point. Gotta cover all the bases.

No, I don't mean that. I mean, if AdSense is serving a lot of ads for bail bonds on Steve's site (the publisher), and Steve thinks that ad isn't relevant (and has any insight into its CTR and payout) then Steve should exclude that bail bonds advertiser from being able to serve. The last time I was really working with AdSense was back in 2008 and publishers could block at least 200 advertisers. I'd guess they can block a lot more now. Also, I believe there is now a cookie-based behavioral component to what ads a user sees with AdSense, so what ads you see may be totally different than what someone else sees, even if they are viewing at the same time.

The problem for sites like Steve's with such varied content, is that there are literally thousands and thousands of potential ads in the auction, contextually eligible to match to the myriad postings on the page. Steve can block hundreds of irrelevant ads, but still have 500 more ready to take their place.

If I was Steve, I would nix AdSense and instead research similar sites to see if any have display banners for a more relevant advertiser. I'd contact that advertiser directly and see if they're interested in putting his ads up on my site. I'd say I want X amount of dollars for a one month test and see how it goes.

Blogger might not be the best platform in terms of ad placement flexibility, but see what you can do.

I think affiliates means [CA] retailers who were selling through Amazon, but not linkers to Amazon. Need to verify that.

I do not believe this is true. The day Amazon cut them off there was a big hue and cry from people who were making money through links the way Reynolds does, as well as speculation about how much money Amazon would continue to make from old posts on which the authors would no longer be compensated.

Why don't you build a membership site and charge for it?From Information Marketing Association. "The most significant innovation in the information marketing business since ebooks is monthly continuity. Continuity programs allow customers to subscribe to receive information on an ongoing basis, often monthly, for a payment or a series of payments. For info-marketers, these continuity programs allow you to build a stream of ongoing subscription revenue into your business."

Please name another blog or web page in the iSteve category that is charging a subscription fee.

For that matter, name a big Web publication, such as the NYTimes or the London Times, that is making an unequivocal success of charging its readers to read their stuff.

Your Information Marketing Association may wish that Web sites could charge subscription fees, but wishing don't make it so.

////////////////////

Here's what I think the deal is with Mexifornia linkers to Amazon: a Californian linking to Amazon who earned a commission from Amazon for aiding a sale would be legally required to pay CA state income tax as well as the IRS on the commission income.

But get this: this income tax would be the case for income from such a such a sales assist even if there were no Internet and no Amazon. Sales commissions are ordinary income to state and federal tax agencies, and have been so for a long time.

I suspect that Amazon may have cut off Mexifornia linkers to Amazon to show its pique with the Jerry Brown regime. As you may know, Amazon is unabashedly organizing a lobbying campaign to try to stop CA from collecting sales tax on Amazon sales there.

/////////////////////////////

P.S. That fellow I got after last night -- the one who said, "Personally I pay no attention to Web page ad-VERTIS-ments, or something like that?

( "ad-VERTIS-ments" the kind of American who accents that word in a snooty English way. )

I thought to myself, "That effer is a cheapskate. Steve prolly won't be able to extract any money from him whatsoever, none at all, under any circumstances, including imposing a subscription fee to read iSteve."

Likewise with peepul who complain that Google search engine isn't up to their exacting requirements.

I've noticed for years that the ads here would be for 'interracial dating' sites, that the ones on the 'Islamophobic', Vlaams Belang supporting Brussels Journal would be for Muslim dating sites, and so on. Clearly Google's ad server doesn't have the intelligence to look at site content in any meaningful way.

I started using Google years ago as it worked a little better than Yahoo search, which was completely worthless.

Same here, except I was using Alta Vista and some meta-search engine, maybe Dogpile? I remember what it was like to use a search engine before G**gle, and it sucked.

I have no loyalty at all to G**gle search. In fact I'd like to stop using it. I'm still shopping for a replacement. I heard Bing was better a while back but that didn't pan out. Now I'm testing duckduckgo.

Somewhere in one of long-forgotten guru Marshall MacLuhan's books, I can't remember which book, he makes fun of pretentious people who affect to pay no attention to advertisements.

I read a book a long time ago called "Guerrilla Marketing" or something like that, where the author gave a few anecdotes about the funny ways in which people deny how they're persuaded by advertising. I remember one, a cabbie who denied being influenced by ads by reciting a toothpaste brand's slogan.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.